<p>mini: Yes, the amount of people killed in drunken driving accidents went down after the drinking age raised. But that fails to substantively prove that the higher drinking age was directly responsible for this decrease. There are sevreal confounding factors.</p>
<p>Firstly, cars got safer during the 1980s. </p>
<p>Secondly, societal attitudes about drunken driving changed massively, as a direct result of MADD’s other campaigns against drunken driving.</p>
<p>The second change was likely responsible for more of the decrease than the raise in the drinking age, especially since other countries where the drinking age was not raisd (Canada being a great example), but where societal attitudes similarly changed experienced an analogous reduction in the durnken driving death rate.</p>
<p>1of42,did you miss the part where mini said that since different states change the drinking ages at different times, you could track what might be due to car safety and societal attitudes vs. actually changing the law?</p>
<p>“mini: Yes, the amount of people killed in drunken driving accidents went down after the drinking age raised. But that fails to substantively prove that the higher drinking age was directly responsible for this decrease. There are several confounding factors.”</p>
<p>Demonstrably false. (And societal attitudes changed BEFORE the legal change - that’s how politics works.)</p>
<p>“This supports my gut reaction. There is a lot of drinking on most college campuses. But the amount varies. When strict anti-drinking laws are enforced, the social lives of drinkers and non-drinkers occur in two very different worlds.”</p>
<p>That’s absolutely true - we can actually see that happening right now at the University of Oklahoma. But it changes for the bingers as well - as they have to make more effort to do it. The 3x-in-two-weeks binger becomes a 1x-in-two-weeks binger, and the non-drinkers don’t have to live around it.</p>
<p>It isn’t my favorite approach (it’s not even one I favor). But I can’t deny that the data show that it works - if the goals are: 1)to get drinking off campus; and 2) create a better environment for non- or moderate drinkers.</p>
<p>OK then mini, clearly since you work in this field you have access to more statistics (or know where said statistics are to be located better) than I do. Post the statistics here (preferably links to independent pages), for our general perusal.</p>
<p>Because, for what it’s worth, I’ve heard many people who claim to have looked at the statistics that say the opposite of you with regards to drinking age and its effect on drunk driving fatalities. I’m not willing to argue about it, though, until I can see some solid statistics, because at the moment neither of us has introduced any real facts into this debate other than “I know this to be true.” Let’s get some real facts, and then we can keep going. ;)</p>
<p>Also as most campuses have adequate supply of bars within walking distance the impact on drunk driving deaths by students at school would be minimal. I too think safer cars and much higher seatbelt usage are more important than the change in the age.</p>
<p>For what its worth, I recently heard on the news (but I don’t have the sources) the same conclusions as 1of42: That drunk driving fatalities are down due to seat belt laws, airbags, MADD, speed limits and stronger enforcement, not because of the change of drinking age to 21.</p>
<p>From my perspective as a parent (who imbibes and has done so since the legal-at-the-time-age of 18), the real issue with college drinking is not the drinking, its the driving. So on campuses where most kids live in dorms and don’t drive, the simple experience of uncontrollable puking can be enough to serve as a strong deterrent to the problem, imo.</p>
<p>There are more problems with binge drinking than just driving or puking. I am aware of fights, pregnancies, injuries from falls, deaths, being robbed etc. My son recently observed a student weaving down a campus street (city campus). My son asked the young man if he needed help (it was 3am) and the guy fell flat on his face and was injured and bleeding. He had to be taken to the hospital.
I don’t know how to solve the problem of rampant binge drinking- I drank in college and occasionally puked, but the binges weren’t night after night, week after week.</p>
<p>scansmom: I didn’t mean in the last year, I meant overall since the mid-1980’s, and I suspect Bay did, too. For what it’s worth, I avoid MADD for information about drunken driving, and drinking in general - they have such a strong neo-prohibitionist agenda that even their founder has washed her hands of the group, and that makes me wary.</p>
<p>(Not to say that that statistic is fabricated or anything)</p>
<p>Looking at either source/authority then, I guess you can still conclude that raising the drinking age to 21 did not have the effect of decreasing drunk driving fatalities.</p>
<p>Bay, I think the under 21 laws have decreased fatalities at least among the under 21 age group - according to NHTSA the percentage of alcohol-related fatalities involving young drivers is MUCH less than the overall percentage of alcohol-related fatalities (about 22% compared to 40%)</p>
<p>And I would agree that there has been an overall decline in alcohol-related traffic fatalities since the under 21 laws went into effect in 1984 - although not so much in the past 15 years; again, according to NHTSA statistics, in 1982 the percentage of alcohol-related traffic totalities compared to all totalities was around 60% and currently is around 40%, (which still seems too high to me, and of course is not just due to the age). What is also disturbing is that 3/4 of this reduction occurred by 1992 when the percentage of alcohol-related deaths was 45% and since then there has not been any significant decrease so in that respect you’re right, they haven’t been working as well in the past 15 yrs (although the under 21 rates have been much lower). But this can be due to many factors also - such as improved safety features and stricter enforcement in the past decade, etc. Oh yeah, and maybe those lower under 21 fatality rates are also due to education efforts that are lacking in the larger population?</p>
<p>And that is the difficulty, isn’t it? There are many factors involved even when focusing only on the drunk driving/fatality aspect. But this is more than just a debate over 18 vs 21 or as it relates to fatality rates (and having grown up surrounded by alcoholism I know this for a fact). The problem is the drinking culture and attitudes that pervade our society; our young people are adopting these attitudes at very early ages - WELL before they even step foot on college campuses. Those numbers are even more disturbing since they do not seem to be declining, especially the rates of those who are binge drinking (vs those who are just experimenting or learning to “drink in moderation”). If it weren’t for the high binge drinking rates - the irresponsible and dangerous drinking that occurs - perhaps both sides of this issue would be having very different and much less divided discussions on this topic and how to deal with it. </p>
<p>But all of this has been said so often before. Perhaps, in the end, nothing really matters unless we can first change our society’s attitudes toward drinking, and we are destined to stay at that 40% fatality level? (and even risk increasing it if we become more lax with the laws/enforcement efforts we do have). And will just have to live with that. This is the line that really divides us isn’t it - those of us who believe that things can change (included attitudes) as a result of all our concerted efforts to attack what we perceive to be social problems and those who don’t perceive them to be problems to begin with.</p>
<p>“What is also disturbing is that 3/4 of this reduction occurred by 1992 when the percentage of alcohol-related deaths was 45% and since then there has not been any significant decrease so in that respect you’re right, they haven’t been working as well in the past 15 yrs (although the under 21 rates have been much lower).”</p>
<p>No, just the opposite is the case. The impact of the law followed the passage and implementation of the law. Following that, there shouldn’t be any reason for them to decline further, unless there are further interventions or changes in public attitudes. (Same is true when immunizations become widespread, or other public health interventions become widespread.)</p>
<p>If one really values the young adults in this discussion then it is clear that these policies (notifying parents), as a rule, are not desirable. Notifying parents and implementing other punishments because one receives medical treatment for the overconsumption of alcohol would encourage students to not seek out help for their friends. Creating a framework that discourages seeking medical attention will aggravate the problems of binge drinking (such as dying from alcohol poisoning) more than it would stop those problems. Parents must be able to put their good intentions aside and endorse a framework that encourages young adults to seek out help.<br>
To the point on the drinking limit and declines in fatalities, the statistics are often misleading. “Researchers Peter Asch and David Levy put it, the “minimum legal drinking age is not a significant-or even a perceptible-factor in the fatality experience of all drivers or of young drivers.” In an in-depth and unrefuted study Asch and Levy prove that raising the drinking age merely transferred lost lives from the 18-20 bracket to the 21-24 age group.” To add to this claim, “Prohibition did not work then and prohibition for young people under the age of 21 is not working now.” <a href=“http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/cqoped.html[/url]”>http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/cqoped.html</a>. Most college students do not drink heavily every day and night. Drinking, and drug patterns tend to be more of a result of the qualities of a specific generation rather than completely dependent upon government policy (although such policy can aggravate or alleviate problems). In short, college students are not damned to booze-dom, most are responsible drinkers.</p>
<p>Interesting, Milton. What do you say to a D who’s best friend at college came home to find that some random drunk was in her bed and had urinated all over himself and her bedding. Evidently her room mate left the door unlocked when she left for a frat party. The random was not very nice about waking up and leaving. They had to call campus security, then run to Target for new bedding. Isn’t college fun?</p>
<p>Fear of notification was the same blunder that ultimately led to 1000’s of AIDS deaths that might have been prevented. It’s a chicken**** approach. If the kid’s don’t call for aid they could be in much bigger trouble for failure to render aid.</p>
<p>I didn’t say that people should not be able to call the campus authorities to remove a defecating drunk. I only said that when people call for help (ambulance) it is foolish for them to load them with punishment for doing so. Feebreeze might be one of the most useful supplies a college student can possess.
Barron’s I am not wholly sure what you are trying to say.</p>
<p>I look at non-punitive alcohol abuse policy like passing out birth control or free needles. Giving away condoms isn’t encouraging people to have sex- it’s acknowledging the facts and keeping them safe. Punishing a student for having a few beers too many is… punishment. It’s like the death penalty- it makes some people feel better but doesn’t change what happened.</p>
<p>If a student is repeatedly caught drunk, that’s a different story. He needs help. I’d “offer” him the opportunity to go into counseling, and if he didn’t take it, then I’d kick him out.</p>
<p>Getting caught by your RA after you’ve had a few beers (first offense) is not grounds for punishment, IMO.</p>
<p>Doubleplay, I agree. My husband went to Purdue and their policy was first offense you were given a warning, second offense you had to meet w/the head RA and he/she would recommend counseling. Third strike, parents were called and you were told that if it happened again you’d be expelled.
It seems like a fair plan to me but I don’t know their current policy.</p>
<p>In the early days of the AIDS crisis many public health officials wanted to do the typical partner tracking and notification that has been done in most sexually transmitted diseases for decades. But the gay lobby was outraged and claimed that fewer would come forward for testing if there were notification. That was a huge mistake.</p>